FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Marriott | Marriott Bonvoy (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy-766/)
-   -   Marriott to Eliminate Single-use Toiletry Bottles (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy/1984883-marriott-eliminate-single-use-toiletry-bottles.html)

cmd320 May 27, 20 9:35 pm


Originally Posted by JackE (Post 32408879)
The savings on bulk toiletries is a pittance compared to the risk to housekeeping, not to mention the added cost of cleaning those unloved bulk containers.

The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

margarita girl May 28, 20 4:41 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32409221)
The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

Many Asian hotels have moved to re-usable glass water bottles. Were those nothing more than a cost reduction too?

speaker May 28, 20 6:49 am

Been a while since I stayed at a Westin, but I miss those leaf-shaped soap bars.
Wouldnít an actual bar of soap be the ideal compromise between the communal dispensers and the mini shower gel bottles?

I would assume that for mini toiletries, the cost of the container is greater than its contents (Eg. buy a mini tube of toothpaste at the pharmacy; itís close to the cost of a full-size tube).

Bar soap need minimal packaging. Itís also inherently tamper-proof (you would know in an instant if the soap had been previously used).

As for the shampoo, why not provide conditioning shampoo, halving the volume of plastic mini bottles needed (and reducing cost).

cmd320 May 28, 20 6:56 am


Originally Posted by margarita girl (Post 32409720)
Many Asian hotels have moved to re-usable glass water bottles. Were those nothing more than a cost reduction too?

Yes. A reusable glass bottle will be more economical than buying new plastic bottles over time.

Antarius May 28, 20 9:04 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32409221)
The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

kabroui May 28, 20 9:05 am


Originally Posted by JackE (Post 32408879)
The savings on bulk toiletries is a pittance compared to the risk to housekeeping, not to mention the added cost of cleaning those unloved bulk containers.

That's one side of it. The other is that in a lot of cases, they aren't aging well at all. At some of the lower end chains, I think they used fairly dubious quality dispensers to begin with and I've stayed at a few places where they were approaching getting downright gross. Combine that with locations like here in Arizona that have very hard water, housekeeping is going to have their work cut out for them keeping them passable.

carrotjuice May 28, 20 9:09 am

I think the rollout will be delayed. Hotels will have to honour their precontracted supply contracts, thus will need to use up their existing supplies first once people resume their travels post pandemic.

storewanderer May 28, 20 10:08 am


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

Antarius May 28, 20 10:19 am


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

This is simply not true. If it was more plastic, then why are they cheaper per unit volume?

margarita girl May 28, 20 10:29 am


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Source?

SPN Lifer May 28, 20 11:28 am


Originally Posted by speaker (Post 32409958)
As for the shampoo, why not provide conditioning shampoo, halving the volume of plastic mini bottles needed (and reducing cost).

Some people prefer not to have the volume of their hair expanded.


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
[ U]sing larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

As a life member of the Sierra Club for almost four decades, I think we simply did not anticipate that our solution would become a pandemic disease vector, like cloth shopping bags.

yeunganson May 28, 20 12:56 pm

Use biodegradable single use containers... I wonder if we have the tech to do that.

gengar May 28, 20 1:19 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

Dollars and cents are black and white. Dollars and cents don't have subtlety.

I don't have a huge problem with the often-made argument in this thread that the end justifies the means, but it's still a good idea to understand what's actually going on and what's actually motivating the businesses here.

beachfan May 28, 20 1:50 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

I think the fact that surface area goes up by the square of the radius (for a sphere) but the volume goes up as the cube of the radius, the thickness of the bottle is not sufficient to overcome the efficiency of a larger bottle in terms of plastic use.

storewanderer May 28, 20 4:29 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410605)
This is simply not true. If it was more plastic, then why are they cheaper per unit volume?

They are cheaper because you have a greater efficiency in packaging the product in a larger bottle. Easier to put a big 24 ounce lump into a bottle than do 24 little 1 ounce lumps. Fewer manufacturing "motions." Cheaper manufacturing process. Has nothing to do with the environment at all. One movement to package the single 24 ounce bottle (vs. 24 movements to do the 24 little ones). One label (albeit a bigger label) on a big bottle vs. 24 little labels on 24 little bottles means it is cheaper to do the labeling process.

As for source on weight, save your bottles and weigh them and you will see. All you have to do is take an empty single use shampoo bottle and an empty "bigger" bottle of a plastic item you have in your house (perhaps it is body wash or shampoo) but making sure it is one that is including the spout/dispenser and weigh it and you will see. The weight of the plastic from the bigger 24 ounce plastic bottle with a spout/dispenser is going to be more than 24 times the weight of the little single use bottle that holds 1 ounce of shampoo, due to the greater thickness of the larger bottle as well as the thick plastic spout/dispenser which is not present in the little bottles.

Again this not only has nothing to do with the environment but it actually has the opposite effect on the environment. People have been duped so badly on this.

The contamination risk with these shared dispensers, reusable super thick plastic cups (these- I do think actually help the environment and actually do reduce plastic use after less than a dozen uses but it is disgusting to expect a Starbucks to accept your reusable cup behind their counter), reusable super thick plastic bags sold for 10 cents in stores (another joke that uses 10-20x more plastic than the thin ones but is not used 10 or 20 times so net negative impact to the environment again), is no different now than it was a year ago. The difference now is it is highlighted. The public is scared of Coronavirus and more scared of contamination now. A larger segment of people will be uncomfortable with these shared dispensers because of fears that have risen from this Coronavirus era. There is no positive environmental benefit to these shared hotel dispensers in the first place so what is the point? Cost savings. Nothing more.

I would accept if the hotel had single use clean sanitary shampoo and soap available upon request. Then I could get those and ignore the shared dispensers. But I suspect in Coronavirus era there is a segment of customers who would not want to get near a shower with those shared dispensers even if not using them.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:38 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.